TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1048
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....12.2017 in the form of an order in original No. 12/2017 dated 29.8.2017 issued by Commissioner of Customs, ICD TKD, New Delhi wherein it has been reported that DRI working on an intelligence, has examined a container No. TRU - 7251469 which was imported under the Bill of Entry No. 6907998 dated 27.9.2014 in 8 ICD TKD, New Delhi by M/s. Jagdamba Enterprises and on examination of the said container under Panchnama dated 1.10.2014, it was found that the consignment was grossly mis-declared in terms of its description, quality, quantity and value and, therefore, under a reasonable belief that the mis-declared goods are liable for confiscation, same were put under seizure and detailed investigations were undertaken by the investigating agency. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een revoked as per the regulation 18 read with 20(71) of CBLR 2013. The security deposit of Rs. 75 lakh has also been forfeited as per the provisions of CBLR 2013. 3. The appellants are before us against the above impugned order in original dated 30.8.2018. At the outset, it has been submitted that during the course of clearing process, the appellant was approached by the proprietor of M/s. Jagdamba Enterprises namely Shri Naresh Kumar Jha in the year 2013 for clearance of import consignments. It was also submitted that Shri Naresh Kumar Jha was introduced to the appellants by one Shri Pawan Kumar Ralli who was a freight forwarder and well known to the appellant firm. Initially, while starting the clearing business of M/s. Jagdamba Enter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er had imported eleven consignments in the past which were cleared after due examination by proper Customs officer and no violation of Customs Act was found in these import consignments and thus it has been claimed that the genuineness of the importer was never under doubt. It is, therefore, not correct to allege that veracity of the importing firm was not checked by the appellant. Thus, it has been emphasized that there was no violation of requirement of Regulation 11(a) of the CBLR on the part of the appellant. 5. The learned advocate has also mentioned that the appellant has also been indicted for violation of CBLR Regulation 11 (d) and (e). The adjudicating authority in his impugned order has held that Customs Broker filed Bill of En....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsignments of M/s. Jagdamba Enterprises, wherein Shri P K Ralli was in in touch with the Director of the appellant firm on day today basis, at the same time as of the import in the previous occasions have been found to be as per the provisions of law, they never felt need to meet the proprietor of the importing firm on each occasion. Learned Advocate has relied on certain case laws of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in this regard which has been pronounced in their own case, having citation [2017 (348) ELT 625 (Del).] Learned advocate has submitted that entire investigation in the matter has not found that the appellant was in any way connived with the importer in mis-declaration of the imported consignment. They have taken all the precautions tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gating officer. This proves that the appellant have taken due caution as was mandated under the Customs Broker License Regulation and same has been produced to the investigating agency. Therefore, we are of the view that findings on this count by the adjudicating authority are not legally sustainable and thus, we hold that obtaining copy of the IEC Code number, Pan card and other details after verification of same with the original documents, including a proper authorization letter for trading, clearing work of the importing firm is an enough compliance of CBLR 11 (a). In this regard, we also place our reliance on the co-ordinate Bench's decision in the case of M/s. APS Freight & Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (Gen), New Delhi [2016 (344) ELT 602....